Author's Forward 

    This book was written for both the ordinary Christian and the Biblical scholar. I ask the indulgence of those 

who know Biblical chronology well, for there are many things explained at length in this book which the 

Biblical scholar does not need explained at all. There is also some repetition of certain points; this is done so as 

not to leave behind anyone who is unaccustomed to following a complex chronological argument. 

    Those who are new to the ideas of Biblical chronology may find the glossary in the back  of the book  

helpful. I would also recommend, to anyone who is serious about understanding these ideas, several other 

books: Handbook of Biblical Chronology, revised edition, by Jack Finegan (Hendrickson Publishers); the works of 

the ancient historians Josephus, Dio, Suetonius, and Tacitus (various editions are available); Chronos, Kairos, 

Christos, (volumes I and II), edited by Vardaman and Yamauchi; and The History of the Church, by Eusebius. 

    To the Biblical scholar, I say:  Keep an open mind!  There are many new and controversial ideas in this 

book. Do not reject these ideas prima facie. There is much evidence in support of this revised chronology, see 

especially chapters 12, 13, 14, and 17. 

    The chronology in this book refutes the underlying assumptions of modern day Biblical chronology. Those 

assumptions consist mainly in the almost universally accepted dates for the reigns of the Roman emperors. My 

conclusions undermine the very foundations of the chronological arguments of every other modern day 

Biblical chronologist. Therefore, I expect that some Biblical chronologists and other scholars will attempt to 

quickly dismiss this book, without examining or refuting the arguments and conclusions found therein. For if 

they cannot find a way to cast off this book, before it is thoroughly examined by students and scholars, their 

own theories and conclusions will be in danger of being refuted and of becoming irrelevant. If the conclusions 

of this book are accepted, then many of the theories of present day Biblical chronologists will crumble to the 

ground. 

    Suppose that someone, researching and studying in any field of knowledge, finds some new conclusions 

which advance that field by a fraction of a step. Such conclusions would be likely to find wide acceptance. 

Other persons studying in that same field will see such results as a kind of validation and advancement of their 

own work. This happens when the new results compliment previous results. 

    Now suppose that someone finds new conclusions, which advance a field of knowledge by leaps and 

bounds. Such conclusions are unlikely to find immediate and widespread acceptance among researchers in the 

same field. It is too much for them to accept all at once. They would have to revise their own ideas to a great 

extent, rather than to a small extent, in order to accept the new conclusions. 

    Finally, suppose that someone finds new conclusions which contradict, refute, and thoroughly undermine 

the work of all contemporary researchers in the same field. These researchers will be unlikely to admit that 

their life's work is riddled with false assumptions and erroneous conclusions. They will not want to step down 

from the role of teacher and take the role of student, in the very field of knowledge where they are considered 

an expert. They will not want to do the extensive work needed to completely revise their own theories to 

conform to the new conclusions. It is easier for them to simply dismiss the new conclusions. 

    But they will have to dismiss these new conclusions without examining them closely and without making a 

logical or scholarly argument. If they argue against these new conclusions in a scholarly fashion, by closely 

examining the evidence and arguments presented, then they will be admitting, in effect, that these ideas have 

merit. They will not want to examine these ideas closely, for fear that they might be understood to be correct. 

Thus, their approach will be to ridicule, rather than to refute. 

    If almost everyone believes something, is that something necessarily true? If every expert in a field of 

knowledge believes the same conclusion, is that conclusion certainly correct? No, not so. It happens from time 

to time, in any field of knowledge, that experts believe things which later turn out to be incorrect. It is the same 

in the field of Biblical chronology. Nearly every Biblical chronologist firmly believes numerous conclusions 

which this book shows are incorrect. 

9